Isolating Language-Coding from Problem-Solving: Benchmarking LLMs with PseudoEval

Existing code generation benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as HumanEval and MBPP are designed to study LLMs' end-to-end performance, where the benchmarks feed a problem description in natural language as input and examine the generated code in specific programming languages. However, the evaluation scores revealed in this way provide a little hint as to the bottleneck of the code generation -- whether LLMs are struggling with their problem-solving capability or language-coding capability. To answer this question, we construct PseudoEval, a multilingual code generation benchmark that provides a solution written in pseudocode as input. By doing so, the bottleneck of code generation in various programming languages could be isolated and identified. Our study yields several interesting findings. For example, we identify that the bottleneck of LLMs in Python programming is problem-solving, while Rust is struggling relatively more in language-coding. Also, our study indicates that problem-solving capability may transfer across programming languages, while language-coding needs more language-specific effort, especially for undertrained programming languages. Finally, we release the pipeline of constructing PseudoEval to facilitate the extension to existing benchmarks. PseudoEval is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PseudocodeACL25-7B74.

Can AI Beat Undergraduates in Entry-level Java Assignments? Benchmarking Large Language Models on JavaBench

Code generation benchmarks such as HumanEval are widely adopted to evaluate LLMs' capabilities. However, after consolidating the latest 24 benchmarks, we noticed three significant imbalances. First, imbalanced programming language. 95.8% of benchmarks involve Python, while only 5 benchmarks involve Java. Second, imbalanced code granularity. Function-/statement-level benchmarks account for over 83.3% of benchmarks. Only a mere handful extends to class-/project-levels, and all are limited to Python. Third, lacking advanced features. Existing benchmarks primarily assess basic coding skills, while overlooking advanced Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) features (i.e., encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism). To fill these gaps, we propose JavaBench, a project-level Java benchmark that exercises OOP features. It comprises four Java projects with 389 methods in 106 Java classes. The test coverage is up to 92%, and JavaBench is attested by 282 undergraduate students, reaching a 90.93/100 average score (i.e., pass rate against the test suite), ensuring the quality of documentation, code skeleton, and tests. To better evaluate LLM's capability against JavaBench, we introduce a systematic evaluation design covering three context settings and five synthesis strategies at two granularities using three hierarchical metrics. Our extensive experiment yields several interesting findings. First, we noticed that regarding project-level Java programming, LLMs are far behind undergraduate students (no project can be correctly completed by any studied LLMs, and at most 41.17% Pass@5 in a more relaxed evaluation). Second, using method signature as prompt context may strike an ideal balance for project-level code generation. JavaBench is publicly available at https://github.com/java-bench/JavaBench.